What absolute proof is there for the theory of evolution?

There is no absolute proof of evolution.Three main points of conjecture:

1: evolution has never been witnessed.

2: We in science are constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with the theory that life self generated is a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance....so far all experiments to attempt to manufacture a self replicating DNA based Molecule have come to no result. there is some evidence supporting RNA based molecules though. Also if successful this would pose an interesting paradox about creation..being we Science created a self replicating molecule...it did not create itself as theory of evolution works.

3: Fossil record is incomplete, yes sure we share similar bone structures to other animals etc.. but there is no defined developmental line of slight mutation per generation to warrant it being evidence for the time being, but it is getting stronger.

Now I am not even saying Evolution is incorrect. I'm being very open minded.

In fact, I think if you were to ask Richard Dawkins (the prince of evolution) he would say similar and he has:

Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in Words of English."

Circumstantial for the moment.

Remember I am answering the question at hand....."Absolute Proof?"

There is no absolute proof.

The theory has a lot evidence in its favor and is the leading idea behind the how did we get here? but it is not absolute.

Definition of Evolution

There seems to be some confusion about what exactly evolution is. Now, when most people say 'evolution' they are referring to Macro-evolution (or speciation), which is the process of one animal slowly changing into another animal. People also tend to refer to Micro-evolution (or adaptation) when trying to prove Macro-evolution but they are two separate processes.

Macro-evolution requires the addition of new genetic material as well as mutations to genetic material in order to bring about enough change to be considered. To be clear, a genetic mutation is the removal of, or change to present genetic material.

Micro-evolution is essentially genetic variation in a species due to genetic mutation. No one argues against Micro-evolution because it is clearly evident. Look at all the different breeds of dogs (or finches) there are today. But there is a limit to how much information you can breed out of dog (or finch) DNA before the animal becomes so unhealthy that it is either unable to reproduce or cannot survive long enough to reproduce.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is a theory based on speculation that there is no intelligent designer that created the universe and life, therefore it must have arisen by natural causes. This theory postulates that natural adaptations seen in animals today can eventually lead to the establishment of new species of animals, if given enough time. There is no experiment using the scientific method that can be used to prove that the theory of evolution is correct. That is unless you conduct an experiment over millions of years, but it still would not prove that evolution had occurred in the past.

So the short answer is:

'There is abundant proof of Micro-evolution, but no proof of Macro-evolution.'

For more information and discussion of this topic visit the Discussion Page.